The debate: Do we call that a draw?

The first week of the federal election has been underwhelming, to say the least. The prime minister professed his love for Breaking Bad. The leader of the Opposition was MIA for days. The leader of the third party donned boxing gloves. Faced with all this nonsense, expectations for the first leaders’ debate, hosted by Maclean’s Magazine, felt pretty low. With stiff-haired competition from the GOP debate, featuring Donald Trump, and the final episode of the Jon Stewart show, it’s a wonder that many Canadians tuned in at all.

But, surprise surprise, the debate delivered a fast-paced, substantive exchange of views between the four party leaders who participated: Stephen Harper, Tom Mulcair, Justin Trudeau and Elizabeth May. It covered a wide range of subjects: the economy, energy and the environment, the state of democracy, and foreign policy and security. In doing so, it revealed the strengths and weaknesses of each leader, and the challenges that lie ahead for each of them in the 73 days remaining of this campaign.

Trudeau took the first question on the economy. Despite having the easiest job – due to low expectations – he started off the weakest, appearing scripted and repetitive. When asked about his plan to create jobs and growth, Trudeau offered far more criticism than substance. However, in the second portion of the debate, on energy, he became more animated, castigating Harper: “You haven’t been able to get it done on the environment, you haven’t been able to get it done on the economy.” He accused the PM of giving an international black eye to the oilsands and charged that “nobody believes you” on the environment.

Trudeau’s most aggressive exchange, however, took place on an issue which had the least relevance in this election — the question of Quebec separation. In the section on democracy, Trudeau raised the question of the Clarity Act, opening the door to a testy back and forth with Mulcair, who repeatedly pressed Trudeau on the number of votes required to separate Quebec from Canada. Trudeau’s agenda was clear: raise the separatist bogeyman to hurt the NDP in English Canada, which was the audience watching this debate. Harper waded in and dismissed the issue as yesterday’s news: “You are trying to throw gasoline on a fire that isn’t even burning.” Trudeau shot back that Mulcair “is choosing to side with the separatist movement in Quebec.”

In the end, it took May to bring the debate back to 2015, and the discussion of contemporary democratic issues such as the Senate. She took Harper to task over his appointment of 59 senators, with Trudeau chiming in that Harper “broke (his) promise 59 times” and Mulcair adding that “Mr. Trudeau thinks we need better senators, I think we need only former senators.”

Harper’s one slip — admitting to Mulcair that Canada is in a recession — didn’t seem to trouble him; perhaps he figures that, with a campaign this long, said recession will be over by the time voters go to the polls.

Overall, May performed well — apart from a few fringe statements that reminded one why the Green Party has not enjoyed the success in Canada that it has had in other countries. When asked about how important it is to balance the budget, May answered “not very”. At another point, she accused the Conservatives of selling out Canadian sovereignty in Asian trade deals, warning that “Beijing will be looking over our shoulder and telling us which laws to pass.” And during the discussion of C-51, she claimed the government was creating a secret police.

Nevertheless, at many other moments, May’s long political memory served her well. She dredged up example after example of Harper’s errors on the environment. She made the point that emissions have declined due to contraction in the oil sector. Even if one doesn’t agree with her conclusions, she frequently appeared to have the research and arguments to back them up.

This could spell trouble for the NDP, which needs to keep the growth of the Green Party in check in order not to eat away at its vote in strategic battlegrounds, such as British Columbia. With this debate coming so early in the campaign, however, it might have been May’s last chance to make a televised national impression — which would suit Mulcair just fine.

For his part, the NDP leader delivered a solid performance, even if he smiled a little too easily (now there’s something I never thought I write) in his attempt to dispel the Angry Tom persona. Mulcair hammered both Harper and Trudeau on their economic visions, telling the prime minister that “we really can’t afford another four years of you.” He cornered the PM into admitting that the country is in recession. Near the end of the debate, he linked foreign policy and the environment: “We can stop working against the world and start working for the planet.”

But on pipelines, a key issue in both B.C. and Quebec, Mulcair’s position remained unclear. When May challenged him, the NDP leader skated: “Opposing them systematically in advance is just as wrong” as supporting them without “objective evaluation,” he said. Mulcair would like to apply the same type of rigour used in provincial evaluations at the federal level, but how this would be achieved was not clear, nor were his criteria for approving or rejecting a pipeline project.

And then there was the PM. For the most part, Harper was unflappable and consistent. His one slip — admitting to Mulcair that Canada is in a recession — didn’t seem to trouble him; perhaps he figures that, with a campaign this long, said recession will be over by the time voters go to the polls. Harper defended his record on the economy, saying that “80 per cent of the economy is growing” and “90 per cent of jobs created are full time, two-thirds are in high wage industries.” He shrugged off attacks on the environment, even sounding a bullish note on the approval of the Keystone pipeline by a future U.S. administration (one can always dream, I suppose). He came out swinging against a carbon tax, concluding that “it’s a front”. (He did voice support, however, for Alberta’s tech fund, because it doesn’t funnel money into general revenue.) On Senate reform, he saw no need to meet with the provinces, as he had talked to them individually: “Opening up constitutional discussions is the wrong priority for the country.”

Harper showed the most passion when talking foreign policy, where he managed to mop the floor with Trudeau. The Liberal leader tried to avoid this fate, by pivoting to the issues of the government failing veterans when they got home and the demonization of the Muslim community, but Harper pushed back. “Muslims are the vast majority of victims of this movement. If you’re not prepared to call this threat by its proper name then you are not prepared to confront it as a country,” Harper intoned. Of the bombing mission, he said, “if you’re Prime Minister you have to be able to make these kinds of decisions.”

The closing statements were a curious mix. Harper emphasized his experience and warned of the other parties raising taxes. Mulcair fumbled his notes, but kept smiling, and said his number one priority is to kickstart industry and create jobs — and oh yeah, he has the experience to replace Mr. Harper. May raised all the issues the Maclean’s debate hadn’t covered, including social policy, aboriginal policy, health care, pharmacare and student debt. And Trudeau delivered a hyperbolic, overly-theatrical soliloquy on being ready for the job of prime minister.

In sum, nobody scored a knockout, nobody failed miserably and the campaign will keep chugging along as before. Or not — as it just might be that this debate injected a big enough dose of gravitas to start focusing on serious issues. In that respect, the winner was… the voter.

Tasha Kheiriddin is a political writer and broadcaster who frequently comments in both English and French. After practising law and a stint in the government of Mike Harris, Tasha became the Ontario director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and co-wrote the 2005 bestseller, Rescuing Canada’s Right: Blueprint for a Conservative Revolution. Tasha moved back to Montreal in 2006 and served as vice-president of the Montreal Economic Institute, and later director for Quebec of the Fraser Institute, while also lecturing on conservative politics at McGill University. Tasha now lives in Whitby, Ontario with her daughter Zara, born in 2009.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

More from iPolitics

1 comment on “The debate: Do we call that a draw?”

Comments are closed.

Author

Tasha Kheiriddin is a well-known political writer and broadcaster. After practising law and a stint in the government of Mike Harris, Tasha became the Ontario director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and co-wrote the 2005 bestseller, Rescuing Canada’s Right: Blueprint for a Conservative Revolution. She now hosts a show on Toronto's Talk Radio AM640.